Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ... Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

healthcare.philips.com
from healthcare.philips.com More from this publisher
19.02.2013 Views

CMS-1403-FC is not in the office when the test is being performed. According to the commenter, this runs counter to long standing Medicare regulation and policy regarding the supervision of diagnostic tests, as many of these tests do not require physician presence during the performance of the test. The commenter argued that changing this, requiring physicians to be present, would only inflate healthcare costs. A commenter recommended that TCs and PCs of non- purchased items performed outside the office of the billing physician or other supplier not be subject to the anti- markup provisions, noting that many audiologists are self- employed and perform testing services for off-site physicians. The commenter further asserted that audiology services do not require physician supervision, and per CMS transmittal 84 (issued February 29, 2008 and effective April 1, 2008), these services are to be billed by the provider of the service and benefits reassigned to the employer. The commenter contended that there has been no evidence of abuse with respect to billed audiology services, so no change is warranted. Response: We are adopting our proposal that, for purposes of satisfying the requirements of Alternative 2 with respect to the TC, the TC must be both conducted and 490

CMS-1403-FC supervised in the office of the billing physician or other supplier. Although the requirement that the supervising physician be present in the office of the billing physician or other supplier may be more restrictive than some Medicare coverage and payments regulations governing supervision of tests, we believe that our amendment to §414.50(a)(2)(iii) is necessary in order to minimize the potential for overutilization and program abuse. We do not believe that healthcare costs would be inflated if physicians were required to be present in the office of the billing physician or other supplier. If the test was not conducted within the office of the billing physician or other supplier, and/or the physician supervision did not occur within the office of the billing physician or other supplier, the service would still be payable by Medicare. We recognize that where audiologist services are performed by an audiologist, no physician supervision is necessary, and therefore the anti-markup provisions do not apply (because §414.50 applies to tests performed by a physician). We note further, however, that the TC of some audiological tests can be conducted by a technician and supervised by a physician, in which case, the anti-markup provisions potentially are applicable to the TCs and PCs of such tests. Although the commenter stated that there is no 491

<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />

is not in the office when the test is being performed.<br />

According to the commenter, this runs counter to long<br />

standing Medicare regulation and policy regarding the<br />

supervision of diagnostic tests, as many of these tests do<br />

not require physician presence during the performance of<br />

the test. The commenter argued that changing this,<br />

requiring physicians to be present, would only inflate<br />

healthcare costs.<br />

A commenter recommended that TCs and PCs of non-<br />

purc<strong>has</strong>ed items performed outside the office of the billing<br />

physician or other supplier not be subject to the anti-<br />

markup provisions, noting that many audiologists are self-<br />

employed and perform testing services for off-site<br />

physicians. The commenter further asserted that audiology<br />

services do not require physician supervision, and per <strong>CMS</strong><br />

transmittal 84 (issued February 29, 2008 and effective<br />

April 1, 2008), these services are to be billed by the<br />

provider of the service and benefits reassigned to the<br />

employer. The commenter contended that there <strong>has</strong> <strong>been</strong> no<br />

evidence of abuse with respect to billed audiology<br />

services, so no change is warranted.<br />

Response: We are adopting our proposal that, for<br />

purposes of satisfying the requirements of Alternative 2<br />

with respect to the TC, the TC must be both conducted and<br />

490

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!